Unlike most of Europe/the US, it seems to me the World War I was a bigger national trauma for the Brits than the World War II - is this a fair statement?
Why would it be?
WWII ended their Empire, involved extensive bombing of the home islands, and the outcome was in doubt for quite some time.
Quote from: Strix on January 05, 2013, 01:36:55 PM
Why would it be?
WWII ended their Empire, involved extensive bombing of the home islands, and the outcome was in doubt for quite some time.
No, just look at any war memorial and compare the list of dead from the two wars.
WW1 played far more of a part of ending the empire than WW2. Not that the empire ever really affected the lives of most Brits.
WW1 definitely wrought the most social change. Its deaths also tended to be a lot less fairly distributed which definitely made it the bigger disaster for some towns.
Quote from: Tyr on January 05, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
WW1 definitely wrought the most social change. Its deaths also tended to be a lot less fairly distributed which definitely made it the bigger disaster for some towns.
Yes, and Kitchener's invention of localized recruiting efforts of "Pals'" Battalions and Home Battalions did a nice job of decimating entire communities. Another wonderful concept to attribute to that cocksucker.
WW1.
WW1 led to the radicalization of British politics and the displacement of the Liberals with Labor as the main alternative to the Conservatives. WW1 Chapter 2 simply reinforced that trend.
I wonder how it is seen in France. Their losses in WW1 were much worse than in WW2, however in WW2 they were occupied and had the Vichy regime.
Quote from: Zanza on January 05, 2013, 03:09:55 PM
I wonder how it is seen in France. Their losses in WW1 were much worse than in WW2, however in WW2 they were occupied and had the Vichy regime.
And got to kill their Jews.
Americans misunderstand World War I generally. For this side of the Atlantic the first war was not bad at all, and the aftermath made the USA the dominant power in finance and manufacturing. That is the dichotomy: for this country the First World War was a springboard to global power, for Europe the Great War was the end of greatness.
Yes, I would agree that WW1 was a bigger trauma than WW2 for Britain.
Firstly the matter of casualties, about one million dead in WW1 compared to 350,000 in WW2. There was probably a qualitative difference here too, at least at the emotional level it was felt that the "best" had died in the 1914-18 conflict.
Secondly WW1 impoverished the UK. Prior to that war Britain had huge net investments overseas and ran a large balance of payments surplus on "invisibles". That position of financial dominance was lost to the USA as huge loans were taken for the war effort. There had been problems for British industry in the years leading up to 1914, but the war meant that modernisation had to be done under unfavourable financial conditions.........the UK actually defaulted on some loans c.1930.
As regards the Empire it was already starting to unravel before WW2 even started. The white Dominions were independent anyway, though good and close friends. The Government of India Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935 ) was a prelude to eventual independence for India. The rest of the Empire was sundry rubbish that cost more than it made plus some good naval bases (of use to a world power) and links in the communication chain to India.
I think it is fair to say that most people knew this in the 1930s. They also knew that they were not up to the job of being global policeman anymore. I remember the old folk talking about this when I was a kid back in the 1960s, there was some resentment towards the USA for abdicating its responsibilities when Britain was clearly no longer capable of fulfilling that role.
Then the war came and the Germans couldn't beat us, for a year we fought them alone ( "all 400 million of us" as Churchill remarked :lol: ). London was full to the brim of exiled governments and other refugees from the appalling despotism on the Continent.........Britain and her Empire were definitely the good guys.
For the purposes of national myth-making it turned out that appeasement was just that silly old bugger Chamberlain's idea (rather false, appeasement was popular whilst it was taking place). Britain was still a land of heroes and of goodness and tolerance that defeated the Nazis :cool:
Everything that Tricky said, plus no big one day death tolls in WWII. Just the steady drip of bomber crews and merchant sailors. And WWI was a squalid little balance of power war, with no bigger stakes than prevention of German domination of the mouth of the Rhine and the creation of a central European customs union. WWII was a war of national survival.
The Great War, by far.
A quick litmus test is the folk memory.
The second war is seen as a Good Thing: Nazi Germany was plainly evil, we did our bit standing alone in 1940, and we pulled off victories like D-Day and El Alamein.
On the other hand, the first war is seen as a slaughter pretty much from start to finish for no discernable gain or cause.
Quote from: PDH on January 05, 2013, 03:14:24 PM
Americans misunderstand World War I generally. For this side of the Atlantic the first war was not bad at all, and the aftermath made the USA the dominant power in finance and manufacturing. That is the dichotomy: for this country the First World War was a springboard to global power, for Europe the Great War was the end of greatness.
I think it depends on a country, really. In Poland for example WWI is remembered through Hashek's satirical books about Austria-Hungary and generally something that got us independence. There is hardly any trauma, it is all viewed as being rather quaint.
WW2 is, obviously, apocalyptic.
I suspect it would be the same for France. The fall of France was a disaster: but three times more Frenchmen died at the Battle of Verdun alone.
Not British but it I would guess WWI. Many, Many more people died, for very little gain. At least at the end of WWII it was clear that Germany wasn't going to get back up.
WWI was basically our Vietnam really. Actually much worse than that (imagine 2 million American dead). WW2 merely knocked us out while we were on one foot already.
Quote from: PJL on January 05, 2013, 04:39:51 PM
(imagine 2 million American dead).
Is katmai one of them?
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2013, 02:07:18 PM
WW1 led to the radicalization of British politics and the displacement of the Liberals with Labor as the main alternative to the Conservatives. WW1 Chapter 2 simply reinforced that trend.
Yeah, grumbler has the right of it. And while Britain was more extensively bombed in WWII, the bombing wasn't as bad as it was feared that it would be during the interwar period. And the Great War had nearly 3 times the death toll as WWII.
Quote from: Warspite on January 05, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
On the other hand, the first war is seen as a slaughter pretty much from start to finish for no discernable gain or cause.
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war. It's a complicated little war.
I'm afraid I must add to the chorus that say WWI was the most traumatic experience.
I won't add to the above discussion really, merely cite some anecdotal evidence. Consider the war memorial in my home town; four sides, four plaques, 3 of them with about twice as many names listed as the fourth.
Guess which plaque relates to WWII? :(
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like
It was a war started by Austria to support their crumbling regime <_<
Started by Serbs and thier Russian enablers you mean.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2013, 07:46:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like
It was a war started by Austria to support their crumbling regime <_<
The key act was a Serbian-supported terrorist shooting the heir to the Empire. Austrian policy for Serbia was less about destruction (although there were certainly elements that wanted Serbia destroyed, most notably Conrad), and more about containing them and especially keeping them from controlling the mouth of the Adriatic.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 05, 2013, 07:48:54 PM
Started by Serbs and thier Russian enablers you mean.
Amen. And damn if pan-slavism ain't the worst kind of slavism there is.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2013, 07:46:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like
It was a war started by Austria to support their crumbling regime <_<
The key act was a Serbian-supported terrorist shooting the heir to the Empire. Austrian policy for Serbia was less about destruction (although there were certainly elements that wanted Serbia destroyed, most notably Conrad), and more about containing them and especially keeping them from controlling the mouth of the Adriatic.
Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country. The ones they had were a pain the ass. I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says. I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.
Pan-slavism wasn't really an intellectual movement though. It's just a cover for Russian imperialism.
World War I, by some distance.
I'd recommend Paul Fussel's The Great War and Modern Memory on this. He argues that despite suffering far fewer casualties than similar powers WWI the UK's experience had a greater cultural impact.
In addition to the points other people have made I think there's a few other aspects for why it lingered in the British memory. There was a particular horror at trench warfare, and especially at gas attacks. So in the same way as WW2 was for something and we were the good guys, there was more of a romance to it. WWI didn't feel like war but like slaughter. 60 000 dead on the first day of the Somme, over 400 000 in total for about 7 miles - or, roughly, a death per centimetre - isn't romantic.
As well as not fighting for anything I think there's also the sense that the army was let down - the myth of lions led by donkeys - while WW2 had heroes again like Monty and Churchill.
Also Europeans dying in their multitudes and being turned into machine parts for the state and total war were things that the Great War introduced after a long period of peace and I think for Britain WWI was still the worst experience of it. We didn't have blitzkrieg over the Downs, or occupation, or deportation.
I also think there's a cultural legacy which matters a great deal. Probably the most popular poems in Britain are those of the war poets.
Edit: Also I think all of European culture gets more sceptical about things like 'progress' or 'honour' or 'patriotism' after WWI. In most of Europe I think you get lots high modernism and the avant garde. That happens in Britain too but I think in this country nostalgia's another cultural legacy of WWI. You even see it in things like Downtown Abbey or other period dramas.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:56:32 PM
Pan-slavism wasn't really an intellectual movement though. It's just a cover for Russian imperialism.
Actually, I think it was a fig leaf the Russian crown used to justify its own legitimacy, badly damaged by 1905-06. I'm sure that there were Russian officals who believed in it, but I don't think they were top-level ones. Those at the top knew it was a facade.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 08:36:46 PM
The key act was a Serbian-supported terrorist shooting the heir to the Empire. Austrian policy for Serbia was less about destruction (although there were certainly elements that wanted Serbia destroyed, most notably Conrad), and more about containing them and especially keeping them from controlling the mouth of the Adriatic.
Yeah but the elements pushing for Serbian destruction, Conrad and Berchtold, were the guys driving the bus in 1914. Austria really had Serbia by the balls after the assasination but they were not interested in half measures. It was going to be war and really Russia had little choice in those circumstances.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2013, 08:55:31 PM
Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country. The ones they had were a pain the ass. I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says. I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.
In fact the Hungarians all but wanted a guarantee that no more Slavs would be in the Empire...which just shows the difficulties and contradictions Austrian policy. But Konrad and the Foreign Office wanted Serbia destroyed, and a big part of Konrad's thinking was that the army and the state needed a victorious war. And since the military and the foriegn office had almost total control of policy in the crisis it was their views that dominated.
In the modern world you have the right to fuck a country right up if it engages in terrorism against you. Russia starting WW1 over the Afghanistan of their day was 1) stupid but not 2) wholly unexpected (see 1).
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 05, 2013, 10:28:21 PM60 000 dead on the first day of the Somme, over 400 000 in total for about 7 miles - or, roughly, a death per centimetre - isn't romantic.
Casualties, not dead; although given the number crippled by long term injuries, or who died later as a result of their wounds (unremovable bullets finally shifting to lethal positions etc.) it's not really that much better.
And 19000 dead on the first day is bad enough... :(
Although, just to show why the first day has overshadowed the whole battle in British perception, that's 1 in 5 of the total British dead for the whole several month long battle.
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2013, 04:14:05 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 05, 2013, 03:14:24 PM
Americans misunderstand World War I generally. For this side of the Atlantic the first war was not bad at all, and the aftermath made the USA the dominant power in finance and manufacturing. That is the dichotomy: for this country the First World War was a springboard to global power, for Europe the Great War was the end of greatness.
I think it depends on a country, really. In Poland for example WWI is remembered through Hashek's satirical books about Austria-Hungary and generally something that got us independence. There is hardly any trauma, it is all viewed as being rather quaint.
WW2 is, obviously, apocalyptic.
but you are the exception.
And I'd guess its not very much pressed in public speech how basically all 3 local Great Powers had Polacks fighting in their ranks. The whole affair ended with Polish folks stopping to be just totally bitchslapped around by everyone they met, so it is understandable they didn't mind the total collapse of world order and the start of a dark age.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2013, 01:01:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2013, 08:55:31 PM
Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country. The ones they had were a pain the ass. I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says. I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.
In fact the Hungarians all but wanted a guarantee that no more Slavs would be in the Empire...which just shows the difficulties and contradictions Austrian policy. But Konrad and the Foreign Office wanted Serbia destroyed, and a big part of Konrad's thinking was that the army and the state needed a victorious war. And since the military and the foriegn office had almost total control of policy in the crisis it was their views that dominated.
Raz is wrong. Austria WAS crumbly, and the leading class (both Austrian and Hungarian) knew that all too well. Hungarian leaders figured they needed to seriously humble Serbia to shut up the southern slavs within the border, as well as gaining "street cred". The only opposition PM Tisza had after the assassination was the vulnerability of Transylvania. Once he was convinced that A-H wouldn't give up the Magyars there, he was happy to greenlight the war.
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: Warspite on January 05, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
On the other hand, the first war is seen as a slaughter pretty much from start to finish for no discernable gain or cause.
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war. It's a complicated little war.
biggest blunder the germans ever made.
Assuming this scenario was even possble they should have just kept the french bottled up in the alsace while dealing with the Russians. Once the russians were out some way to deal with france surely could be divised. Once the war was then over Belgium would fall into the german lap by default.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2013, 09:01:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 05, 2013, 04:14:05 PMI think it depends on a country, really. In Poland for example WWI is remembered through Hashek's satirical books about Austria-Hungary and generally something that got us independence. There is hardly any trauma, it is all viewed as being rather quaint.
WW2 is, obviously, apocalyptic.
but you are the exception.
I can see how Hungary might see WW1 as more traumatic because you lost so much territory.
But I would expect it to be pretty much the exception in Central and Eastern Europe in that aspect. The Second World War was much worse for Germany/Austria, Poland, the Soviet Union, Finland, Yugoslavia, and Greece, probably also for Czechoslovakia. Not sure about Romania or Bulgaria. All of East Asia also suffered much more from WW2 than from WW1. No idea about Italy. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were not even involved in WW1.
Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2013, 09:04:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2013, 01:01:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2013, 08:55:31 PM
Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country. The ones they had were a pain the ass. I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says. I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.
In fact the Hungarians all but wanted a guarantee that no more Slavs would be in the Empire...which just shows the difficulties and contradictions Austrian policy. But Konrad and the Foreign Office wanted Serbia destroyed, and a big part of Konrad's thinking was that the army and the state needed a victorious war. And since the military and the foriegn office had almost total control of policy in the crisis it was their views that dominated.
Raz is wrong. Austria WAS crumbly, and the leading class (both Austrian and Hungarian) knew that all too well. Hungarian leaders figured they needed to seriously humble Serbia to shut up the southern slavs within the border, as well as gaining "street cred". The only opposition PM Tisza had after the assassination was the vulnerability of Transylvania. Once he was convinced that A-H wouldn't give up the Magyars there, he was happy to greenlight the war.
Yeah, but unfortunately a half-century of Hungarian nonsense had weakened Austria to the point where they weren't able to win. That's why Hungary's fate was poetic justice, even if it retarded the forces of civilization in Eastern Europe by taking the Slavs and Hungarians out from under the guidance of Austria.
Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2013, 09:52:30 AM
No idea about Italy.
Hard to say. Both of them were quite traumatic for Italy, but I think WWII might have been just a bit worse. Sure, there were massive social disruptions that allowed for the birth of fascism, but the slaughter on the Isonzo didn't result in the complete breakdown of social order and government in Italy the way that WWII did. WWI didn't create modern Italy, that was WWII and the occupation.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 06, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: Warspite on January 05, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
On the other hand, the first war is seen as a slaughter pretty much from start to finish for no discernable gain or cause.
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war. It's a complicated little war.
biggest blunder the germans ever made.
Assuming this scenario was even possble they should have just kept the french bottled up in the alsace while dealing with the Russians. Once the russians were out some way to deal with france surely could be divised. Once the war was then over Belgium would fall into the german lap by default.
That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time it was hard to realize that the Russians would be rather bad at modern war.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2013, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: Zanza on January 06, 2013, 09:52:30 AM
No idea about Italy.
Hard to say. Both of them were quite traumatic for Italy, but I think WWII might have been just a bit worse. Sure, there were massive social disruptions that allowed for the birth of fascism, but the slaughter on the Isonzo didn't result in the complete breakdown of social order and government in Italy the way that WWII did. WWI didn't create modern Italy, that was WWII and the occupation.
For much of WW2 they were living la duce vita.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2013, 10:58:38 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 06, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 05, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: Warspite on January 05, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
On the other hand, the first war is seen as a slaughter pretty much from start to finish for no discernable gain or cause.
It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war. It's a complicated little war.
biggest blunder the germans ever made.
Assuming this scenario was even possble they should have just kept the french bottled up in the alsace while dealing with the Russians. Once the russians were out some way to deal with france surely could be divised. Once the war was then over Belgium would fall into the german lap by default.
That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time it was hard to realize that the Russians would be rather bad at modern war.
indeed. Though someone must have seen that trying to follow their plan on the west front must have been rather stupid if it drew the British into the war.
By the time they realized that the British took the Treaty of London seriously, it was too late. I can sort of see how they fooled themselves there, since Britain's strategic goal there was to maintain supremacy on the Channel by ensuring that Belgium's excellent ports wouldn't fall into French hands, but they didn't take into account that it was Germany, not France that was now Britain's rival.
I wonder though...if the Germans contained a French attack, and defeat Russia (assuming the Eastern front ends much like with Brest-Litovsk)...would Britain have been content to sit and let the German-led Axis become the overwhelmingly dominant force on the Continent?
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2013, 04:18:14 PM
I wonder though...if the Germans contained a French attack, and defeat Russia (assuming the Eastern front ends much like with Brest-Litovsk)...would Britain have been content to sit and let the German-led Axis become the overwhelmingly dominant force on the Continent?
No. But they also wouldn't be able to do much about it. Unless they got into the war right off the bat (which was very possible, even without the invasion of Belgium), they would be unlikely to go to war against a combinations of Germany, Austria, Italy and the Ottoman Empire with only France for an ally.
I wonder....what if the Germans did as suggested. Hold the French in the west and concentrate on Russia....might not the French then end up being th ones to attempt to get at Germany via Belgium? that would be interesting for Britain. they're obviously not going to attack the French but they would be in a dodgy spot.
No Britain in the war- might this also lead to Italy joining the war on the side of the allies? Not for a while I wager but they would want to push some of their claims, even if they're not their favourite ones
WW1 in the East unfolds much differently in the scenario where the Germans don't assault France; there would be no need for an early attack on Prussia, and thus the largely veteran First and Second Armies wouldn't be annihilated.
Germany gambling its national existence on Belgium remaining neutral strikes me as unlikely; the forces Germany could send against Russia would be far less than they did historically send against France, because they would need to guard their entire frontier, not just Alsace and Lorraine. I don't see Germany wining such a war, and don't see Britain staying out of it.
Incidentally I recently read about some of the proposals for 2014 commemorations, which I think indicate that WWI was a larger trauma. They include flying all official flags at half-mast for the day and ringing the church bells across the country on Armistice Day at the eleventh hour.
WW1 is hardly commemorated in Germany because it is dwarfed by the shadow of WW2. There's been a few documentaries in recent years, but the closest to commemorating WW1 is that carnival season starts on Nov 11th, 11:11 am. :unsure:
Then again, German history pre-WW2 gets largely ignored with the occasional exception of people like Bismarck, Frederick the Great or Martin Luther.
Thanks for very informative posts, guys. I started this thread while watching Downton Abbey, where the trauma of WWI features prominently during the second season.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2013, 12:38:36 AM
Incidentally I recently read about some of the proposals for 2014 commemorations, which I think indicate that WWI was a larger trauma. They include flying all official flags at half-mast for the day and ringing the church bells across the country on Armistice Day at the eleventh hour.
Which is interesting considering noone who was an adult (and hardly anyone who was alive) during WWI lives today, but there is a whole lot of people who did during WWII.
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 02:54:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2013, 12:38:36 AM
Incidentally I recently read about some of the proposals for 2014 commemorations, which I think indicate that WWI was a larger trauma. They include flying all official flags at half-mast for the day and ringing the church bells across the country on Armistice Day at the eleventh hour.
Which is interesting considering noone who was an adult (and hardly anyone who was alive) during WWI lives today, but there is a whole lot of people who did during WWII.
A further point to make is that WW2 was a fairly direct result of WW1. IIRC Clemenceau said something to the effect that "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". Nearly 100 years on and the causes of WW1 are still a matter of intense debate, whereas the causes of WW2 seem straightforward. It all went wrong in August 1914 and Britain was a bit of a loser in the new world created by that, having been a winner and major beneficiary of the long peace before that.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
I'd say it depends on a country, again. For example, in Britian, WW1 significantly upset the class society so I would say it brought a much greater change in everybody's life. For the US, I would definitely say that it was WW2, which ushered in the completely new era.
Then you have countries like Poland or Russia which had massive political upheavals associated with the wars, which changed the lifestyle of everyone in a much more dramatic fashion (but for Poland I would say it is still WW2, as pre-WW2 Poland was a very much a class society, like Britain pre-WW1).
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
The 1913-1920ish. Just look at the art after WWI. The poetry, the painting, the sculpture. It all cries out despair and cynicism and exhaustion. Compare it the the joy, self assurance and pride before the war. In truth, Europe still hasn't recovered.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:05:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
The 1913-1920ish. Just look at the art after WWI. The poetry, the painting, the sculpture. It all cries out despair and cynicism and exhaustion. Compare it the the joy, self assurance and pride before the war. In truth, Europe still hasn't recovered.
Again, when you talk about Europe, it really just means the great powers. For example, in Poland's case, the period of 20 years between wars was pretty cheerful, culturally, especially in the beginning. Only when fascism/authoritarism started to raise its ugly head in the 30s, it began to get gloomy.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 03:51:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
I'd say it depends on a country, again. For example, in Britian, WW1 significantly upset the class society so I would say it brought a much greater change in everybody's life. For the US, I would definitely say that it was WW2, which ushered in the completely new era.
Then you have countries like Poland or Russia which had massive political upheavals associated with the wars, which changed the lifestyle of everyone in a much more dramatic fashion (but for Poland I would say it is still WW2, as pre-WW2 Poland was a very much a class society, like Britain pre-WW1).
I deliberately set the deadline to avoid the reintroduction of feudalism in eastern europe by the Soviets, as it is not relevant.
Communist Poland had many faults, but reintroducing feudalism was not one of them. Pre-WW2 Poland was an extremely class-based society, with a lot of lower class/rural people being illiterate, while the aristocracy and the rich lived in palaces, served by dozens of people. Communists completely changed that.
I am as anti-communist as they come, but I am annoyed by the stupid, knee-jerk anti-communism of the uneducated people in our part of Europe that is not based in facts. True, the post-war communist propaganda has depicted the pre-war situation in Poland, Hungary, etc. in the worst possible light, going out of its way to smear anyone who was not a communist, but it is equally irritating to see the changes brought forth by communism as universally bad.
It made education accessible for the poor, I give you that. It also stole the property of everyone who had any worth stealing.
But in effect, those who did not go to work in factories switched from toiling away in private owned agriculture to state owned agriculture. And since you:
a) HAD to work, and all work was state owned
b) were not allowed to start a private enterprise
it had no noticable difference from feudalism, apart from propaganda and coating.
Well, I guess Poland was an exception again, since you were allowed to start small private businesses here (including farms, shops and service outlets). The only area where the state had a monopoly was industrial production.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 05:09:53 AM
Well, I guess Poland was an exception again, since you were allowed to start small private businesses here (including farms, shops and service outlets). The only area where the state had a monopoly was industrial production.
Wasn't that nice of them! :rolleyes:
here small shops were also allowed from the 70s or something.
Dude, I am not saying that communism was a desirable system or that I would like it to return. It's just that when you criticise it, there is enough truth to go around that you do not need to invent false stuff.
Culturally and socially, definitely WWI - an entire generation of men was decimated. But with bombings in major cities bringing the war to the doorsteps of Britons, WWII had more of an impact on the national psyche.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2013, 03:38:43 AM
IIRC Clemenceau said something to the effect that "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".
That was Foch, and his point was that the treaty was not harsh enough to cripple Germany.
I tend to think of Versailles, at least with regard to Germany, as like the Roman fable/history of the Battle of the Caudine Forks where the Sabine General was advised either to be mercilessly brutal or magnanimous to the beaten Romans. He lacked the nerve to do either and the Sabine victory only served to anger the Romans.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 06:06:07 AM
Dude, I am not saying that communism was a desirable system or that I would like it to return. It's just that when you criticise it, there is enough truth to go around that you do not need to invent false stuff.
Which part am I inventing? Can't you see that there is little if any practical difference between the system of feudal nobility and peasants vs. the state-owned economy and mandatory work in it by the citizens? Sure, you said comrade director instead of Sir, but hey
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
Which part am I inventing? Can't you see that there is little if any practical difference between the system of feudal nobility and peasants vs. the state-owned economy and mandatory work in it by the citizens? Sure, you said comrade director instead of Sir, but hey
Less bureaucracy in a feudal system.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2013, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
Which part am I inventing? Can't you see that there is little if any practical difference between the system of feudal nobility and peasants vs. the state-owned economy and mandatory work in it by the citizens? Sure, you said comrade director instead of Sir, but hey
Less bureaucracy in a feudal system.
dependent on the specifics of the age in terms of population and technologies available
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2013, 09:59:28 AM
Less bureaucracy in a feudal system.
And fewer inspiring slogans.
I remember a history professor of mine likening WWI in Britain to the US Civil War in the US in terms of how it's remembered.
Which system serves its food better?
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2013, 10:20:29 AM
I remember a history professor of mine likening WWI in Britain to the US Civil War in the US in terms of how it's remembered.
Big German reenactment community over there.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
For Germany both were huge upheavals. Not sure which was bigger. The transition from Imperial to Republican Germany was obviously dramatic, but then so was the transition from Nazism to democracy. 1949 is considered a zero hour for Germany, which is at least not how 1919 is seen nowadays. So I would tend towards the 1940s being a bigger upheaval for Germany.
Quote from: derspiess on January 07, 2013, 10:20:29 AM
I remember a history professor of mine likening WWI in Britain to the US Civil War in the US in terms of how it's remembered.
I had a literature teacher make the same argument.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:11:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:05:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
The 1913-1920ish. Just look at the art after WWI. The poetry, the painting, the sculpture. It all cries out despair and cynicism and exhaustion. Compare it the the joy, self assurance and pride before the war. In truth, Europe still hasn't recovered.
Again, when you talk about Europe, it really just means the great powers. For example, in Poland's case, the period of 20 years between wars was pretty cheerful, culturally, especially in the beginning. Only when fascism/authoritarism started to raise its ugly head in the 30s, it began to get gloomy.
So the 20 year period is actually around 10 years? I have a hard time believing it was particularly cheery when you had people trying to assemble a government with three remnant administrations. Not to mention there had to be significant devastation and death due to it being a major battlefield and Poles were conscripted to fight in three different armies during the war, and then partake in the Russian Civil War.
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
Bullshit.
I mean really? Poles fought on both sides in great numbers and Poland was one of the main theatres of war for awhile.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 07, 2013, 03:38:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 02:54:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2013, 12:38:36 AM
Incidentally I recently read about some of the proposals for 2014 commemorations, which I think indicate that WWI was a larger trauma. They include flying all official flags at half-mast for the day and ringing the church bells across the country on Armistice Day at the eleventh hour.
Which is interesting considering noone who was an adult (and hardly anyone who was alive) during WWI lives today, but there is a whole lot of people who did during WWII.
A further point to make is that WW2 was a fairly direct result of WW1. IIRC Clemenceau said something to the effect that "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". Nearly 100 years on and the causes of WW1 are still a matter of intense debate, whereas the causes of WW2 seem straightforward. It all went wrong in August 1914 and Britain was a bit of a loser in the new world created by that, having been a winner and major beneficiary of the long peace before that.
I recall some historian on a show I watched as a teenager calling WW1 and WW2 the "Second Thirty-Years War".
I want to think AJP Taylor coined that phrase.
World War One fought with the pike and shot armies would have been much more interesting to me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 07, 2013, 11:04:10 PM
World War One fought with the pike and shot armies would have been much more interesting to me.
Pity no one told them. I'm sure they all would have been happy to oblige if only they'd known.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
I guess a million dead Poles is not significant?
I suspect it is the way it is taught in schools over there. It's supposed to be a festive glorious period, so details like a million death and initial power struggles are gallantly skipped over
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2013, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
I guess a million dead Poles is not significant?
Those were Russians and Germans, not Poles! No true Polish patriot would fight for those Imperialist Dogs! :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2013, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
I guess a million dead Poles is not significant?
I hate to side with Marti on any issue, but you seem to be trolling here. Marti didn't say that "one million dead Poles is not significant," he said that the death toll from WW1 was not significant. Even if we accept the Wiki figures (250,000 military, 370,000 civilian deaths) - which are based on pretty flimsy evidence - that doesn't total a million (which figure would include the German, Austrian, and Russian soldiers killed in battle) and so may not, as Marti claims, be "significant" in Polish history.
Quote from: Tamas on January 07, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
When was there more switch between how the world and people's everyday life looked like?
1913 and 1920ish
or 1938 and late 1940s?
Definitely has to be WW1 in the UK.
Things are confused somewhat by the post-war introduction of the welfare state, some may be too quick to point to the war as the cause of that, but the rise of labour had been going on for years with the messed up situation of the 30s and the war delaying it for a while. There was of course an aspect of reaction to the war but it certainly wasn't the whole picture
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 09:17:09 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2013, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
I guess a million dead Poles is not significant?
I hate to side with Marti on any issue, but you seem to be trolling here. Marti didn't say that "one million dead Poles is not significant," he said that the death toll from WW1 was not significant. Even if we accept the Wiki figures (250,000 military, 370,000 civilian deaths) - which are based on pretty flimsy evidence - that doesn't total a million (which figure would include the German, Austrian, and Russian soldiers killed in battle) and so may not, as Marti claims, be "significant" in Polish history.
How big was the population of Poland at the time? 30 millionish?
620k is 2%, that would be normally a devastating loss, but compared to what happened to Poland in World War Two I can see how it would considered paltry.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 09:17:09 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2013, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
I guess a million dead Poles is not significant?
I hate to side with Marti on any issue, but you seem to be trolling here. Marti didn't say that "one million dead Poles is not significant," he said that the death toll from WW1 was not significant. Even if we accept the Wiki figures (250,000 military, 370,000 civilian deaths) - which are based on pretty flimsy evidence - that doesn't total a million (which figure would include the German, Austrian, and Russian soldiers killed in battle) and so may not, as Marti claims, be "significant" in Polish history.
That's because the Wiki figures you looked at only included Poles who lived in borders of contemporary Poland, not much larger borders that existed between 1919-1939.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2013, 10:32:15 AM
620k is 2%, that would be normally a devastating loss, but compared to what happened to Poland in World War Two I can see how it would considered paltry.
Yeah it was not bordering genocide or anything but I was not aware losses on that scale were not even considered signficant.
Did the three partitioning powers all draft Poles into their armies?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2013, 01:08:18 PM
Did the three partitioning powers all draft Poles into their armies?
Yes.
Austria went one further and recruited a volunteer 'Kingdom of Poland' army as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_in_World_War_I
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 01:05:43 PM
Yeah it was not bordering genocide or anything but I was not aware losses on that scale were not even considered signficant.
In part, that is just passive voice biting you in the ass, as it usually does. Significance is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder in this case is the post-WW2 Pole.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2013, 10:32:15 AM
How big was the population of Poland at the time? 30 millionish?
620k is 2%, that would be normally a devastating loss, but compared to what happened to Poland in World War Two I can see how it would considered paltry.
Poland had a pop over 30 million, but probably only 20-22 million were actually poles. 620k is probably closer to 3% than 2% of the actual Poles.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 01:47:01 PM
In part, that is just passive voice biting you in the ass, as it usually does. Significance is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder in this case is the post-WW2 Pole.
I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.
The really traumatic thing about the Great War is that the clash of battlefleets didn't produce a decisive result.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 01:51:18 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 08, 2013, 10:32:15 AM
How big was the population of Poland at the time? 30 millionish?
620k is 2%, that would be normally a devastating loss, but compared to what happened to Poland in World War Two I can see how it would considered paltry.
Poland had a pop over 30 million, but probably only 20-22 million were actually poles. 620k is probably closer to 3% than 2% of the actual Poles.
Yes but your number only takes into consideration people who were living in boundaries of modern Poland, not what Poland was in 1919. If anything the number would fall even heavier on ethnic Poles since the larger borders of the Republic of Poland contained large numbers of Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belorussians.
Just goes to show you, don't side with Marty.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 01:53:24 PM
I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.
:huh: People are ignorant of most insignificant things. There is no disconnect between being ignorant of something and it not being significant; in general, there is a direct correlation.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 01:53:24 PM
I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.
:huh: People are ignorant of most insignificant things. There is no disconnect between being ignorant of something and it not being significant; in general, there is a direct correlation.
I thought I was being pretty clear there. I was trying to I don't think he meant that he just didn't care personally (or even that Poles in general don't care) about the number of people killed. Rather that I thought he was under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured. I get that the war does not resonate very much in modern Poland though, I would be surprised if it did after WWII.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 05:21:58 PM
I thought I was being pretty clear there. I was trying to I don't think he meant that he just didn't care personally (or even that Poles in general don't care) about the number of people killed. Rather that I thought he was under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured. I get that the war does not resonate very much in modern Poland though, I would be surprised if it did after WWII.
I understand what you are saying, but am simply pointing out that what
is significant is highly conditional, and that marti saying that the losses of WW1 are not significant says nothing about whether it should be significant, which is where I think your "under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured" comment leads. If those losses don't register as "significant" today, then they probably weren't "traumatic" (to go back to the language of the original idea).
:hmm:
Once again a topic gets hijacked by the pedantic semantic crowd...
Is one a crowd?
Quote from: sbr on January 08, 2013, 07:44:39 PM
Is one a crowd?
I was thinking 3, but I'm struggling to find that many....
Quote from: PJL on January 08, 2013, 07:11:12 PM
Once again a topic gets hijacked by the pedantic semantic crowd...
Once again, the peanut gallery shows why it adds no value to a conversation by whining...
I'm with grumbler on this one. The original question asked "which world war was the bigger trauma", it is not really about facts but a country's state of mind. Poland regained its independence in WW1 so the national memory converts it into a triumph rather than a tragedy; also, given that WW2 was so much worse for them, most tragic elements in their WW1 story will have been expunged by the far greater and later tragedy.
I'm not sure why we'd consult Marti to see how Polish people feel. :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 09, 2013, 02:44:07 AM
I'm with grumbler on this one. The original question asked "which world war was the bigger trauma", it is not really about facts but a country's state of mind. Poland regained its independence in WW1 so the national memory converts it into a triumph rather than a tragedy; also, given that WW2 was so much worse for them, most tragic elements in their WW1 story will have been expunged by the far greater and later tragedy.
long WW2 list of Polish tragedies indeed:
-countless killed
-countless oppressed
-about a dozen jews managed to hide
:homestar:
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 09:17:09 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2013, 12:44:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2013, 04:33:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 07, 2013, 04:29:03 PM
Poland wasn't really devastated by WW1. And there was no significant deathtoll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#.C2.A0Poland
Poland was occupied by Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia from 1795–1914. By late 1915 Germany had complete control over modern day Poland. A 2005 Polish study estimated 3.4 million Poles served in the Armed Forces of the occupying powers during World War I. Total deaths from 1914–18, military and civilian, within the 1919–1939 borders, were estimated at 1,130,000.
I guess a million dead Poles is not significant?
I hate to side with Marti on any issue, but you seem to be trolling here. Marti didn't say that "one million dead Poles is not significant," he said that the death toll from WW1 was not significant. Even if we accept the Wiki figures (250,000 military, 370,000 civilian deaths) - which are based on pretty flimsy evidence - that doesn't total a million (which figure would include the German, Austrian, and Russian soldiers killed in battle) and so may not, as Marti claims, be "significant" in Polish history.
This. The WW1 and immediate post-WW1 losses/destruction simply do not register in Polish popular opinion, as opposed to WW2 losses.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 05:21:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2013, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2013, 01:53:24 PM
I just thought his statement meant he was ignorant of what actually happened in WWI in Poland rather than actually claiming hundreds of thousands was not not significant.
:huh: People are ignorant of most insignificant things. There is no disconnect between being ignorant of something and it not being significant; in general, there is a direct correlation.
I thought I was being pretty clear there. I was trying to I don't think he meant that he just didn't care personally (or even that Poles in general don't care) about the number of people killed. Rather that I thought he was under the mistaken impression that the number of Poles who died was a great deal smaller than what actually occured. I get that the war does not resonate very much in modern Poland though, I would be surprised if it did after WWII.
That may be true, but I am not under-educated compared to an average Pole, especially when it comes to history. In fact, I researched this topic a bit and the consensus is that there is no universally acceptable figure of Polish losses (btw, I am pretty sure the Poles' death toll of WW1 Raz quoted involves not just ethnic Poles, but people living within the borders of what became Poland after 1920) in WW1, because frankly noone gave a damn at this time. This is because (1) there was a universal understanding that we won that war (because all occupying powers, despite being on the opposite sides, lost), and (2) what came 20 years later eclipsed it by several magnitudes.
So yes, in the popular reception, this was not significant.
As a vaguely related aside, Mart you need to check out pre-war drama Spies of Warsaw. David Tennant has his shirt off a lot.
Quote from: Brazen on January 10, 2013, 07:01:11 AM
As a vaguely related aside, Mart you need to check out pre-war drama Spies of Warsaw. David Tennant has his shirt off a lot.
Will check it out although he is not my type.
Yeah I'm a bit surprised by David Tennant love.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 06:05:12 AM
That may be true, but I am not under-educated compared to an average Pole, especially when it comes to history. In fact, I researched this topic a bit and the consensus is that there is no universally acceptable figure of Polish losses (btw, I am pretty sure the Poles' death toll of WW1 Raz quoted involves not just ethnic Poles, but people living within the borders of what became Poland after 1920) in WW1, because frankly noone gave a damn at this time. This is because (1) there was a universal understanding that we won that war (because all occupying powers, despite being on the opposite sides, lost), and (2) what came 20 years later eclipsed it by several magnitudes.
So yes, in the popular reception, this was not significant.
Yeah I get all that. I was never disputing that WW1 was not traumatic to Poland and obviously was way overshadowed by WWII that is obvious. I was merely disagreeing the reason for that was because there were few deaths. I misunderstood you meant the public memory of those deaths is that there were few of them but rather you meant on some sort of objective sense they were not significant.
And yeah it is sort of funny in retrospect. The only hope Polish patriots had was some sort of war between Germany, Austria, and Russia where all three of them lose...which is ridiculous except it actually happened.
Well, to be honest, I was a bit dismissive of the WW1 casualties as I did not exactly know the numbers - in retrospect, it's a bit surprising that this does not feature as a big thing in our collective memory (the war with bolsheviks of 1920 is much more prominently remembered), especially if you consider we experienced quite a cultural revival in the 1918-1939 period, so it's not like there was noone to write about it either.
Personally, I think it got subsumed into the "we suffered for 120 years to be free at last" narrative and there was a lot of other problems, both internal and external, that were more related to trying to reunite three completely different countries that people did not pay that much attention to the recent past.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 06:05:12 AM
(btw, I am pretty sure the Poles' death toll of WW1 Raz quoted involves not just ethnic Poles, but people living within the borders of what became Poland after 1920) in WW1...
Just to clear up some apparent confusion on the Wiki article Raz quoted:
(1) It is a Wiki article, so not authoritative, though maybe the best thing available;
(2) There are two numbers given: those for total losses within the post-1920 borders of Poland (the 1.13 million number) from a 2005 bok written by a Pole, and those for Polish-only losses with the modern borders of Poland (the 640,000 number) from a Russian journalist's 2004 book.
(3) The latter numbers are the ones I used, and those are the ones we should be using to measure Polish losses. The former numbers include all the non-Polish soldiers killed fighting over Poland.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2013, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 06:05:12 AM
(btw, I am pretty sure the Poles' death toll of WW1 Raz quoted involves not just ethnic Poles, but people living within the borders of what became Poland after 1920) in WW1...
Just to clear up some apparent confusion on the Wiki article Raz quoted:
(1) It is a Wiki article, so not authoritative, though maybe the best thing available;
(2) There are two numbers given: those for total losses within the post-1920 borders of Poland (the 1.13 million number) from a 2005 bok written by a Pole, and those for Polish-only losses with the modern borders of Poland (the 640,000 number) from a Russian journalist's 2004 book.
(3) The latter numbers are the ones I used, and those are the ones we should be using to measure Polish losses. The former numbers include all the non-Polish soldiers killed fighting over Poland.
But the "modern" borders of Poland are in no way comparable to the previous borders of any iteration of Poland as a country, nor to where Poles actually lived in 1914. For example, does this mean the Polish families kicked out of what became western Byelorussia after 1945 and that then settled in the formerly German inhabited regions near the Oder have their ancestors losses included in the 640000 or not?
It seems somewhat disingeneous to use the post 1945 borders of Poland as the region of comparison for computing Polish WWI losses.
With all that Polish dead, they didn't have the numbers required to change a light bulb. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on January 10, 2013, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2013, 10:21:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 06:05:12 AM
(btw, I am pretty sure the Poles' death toll of WW1 Raz quoted involves not just ethnic Poles, but people living within the borders of what became Poland after 1920) in WW1...
Just to clear up some apparent confusion on the Wiki article Raz quoted:
(1) It is a Wiki article, so not authoritative, though maybe the best thing available;
(2) There are two numbers given: those for total losses within the post-1920 borders of Poland (the 1.13 million number) from a 2005 bok written by a Pole, and those for Polish-only losses with the modern borders of Poland (the 640,000 number) from a Russian journalist's 2004 book.
(3) The latter numbers are the ones I used, and those are the ones we should be using to measure Polish losses. The former numbers include all the non-Polish soldiers killed fighting over Poland.
But the "modern" borders of Poland are in no way comparable to the previous borders of any iteration of Poland as a country, nor to where Poles actually lived in 1914. For example, does this mean the Polish families kicked out of what became western Byelorussia after 1945 and that then settled in the formerly German inhabited regions near the Oder have their ancestors losses included in the 640000 or not?
It seems somewhat disingeneous to use the post 1945 borders of Poland as the region of comparison for computing Polish WWI losses.
Yeah, It's like considering Soviet casualties in WWII by only taking into consideration ethnic Russians who lived in the borders of what is now the state of Russia.
Actually, it's the kinda the opposite, Raz, as Poland pre-WW2 occupied territories that were much more sparsely populated than Silesia, Pommerania and Greater Poland it got in WW2 (hell, to this day, sans Warsaw, these territories remain the most densely populated and highly industrialized/urbanised in the country).
If Poland had today's borders in 1918, its population would have been much higher than the population of the territory controlled by Poland after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 10, 2013, 10:30:02 AM
But the "modern" borders of Poland are in no way comparable to the previous borders of any iteration of Poland as a country, nor to where Poles actually lived in 1914. For example, does this mean the Polish families kicked out of what became western Byelorussia after 1945 and that then settled in the formerly German inhabited regions near the Oder have their ancestors losses included in the 640000 or not?
It seems somewhat disingeneous to use the post 1945 borders of Poland as the region of comparison for computing Polish WWI losses.
The modern borders exclude a lot of territory in which the Poles lived (even if as a minority) in 1914, for sure. That's why I called the evidence for those numbers flimsy in my first use of them.
In 1939, the Eastern part of Poland consisted of 13 million people. What the population was in 1920 I can't find, but I imagine it was fairly close. This is also the part of Poland that the Russian "Journalist" did not take into consideration probably because Russians never did accept the extent of Poland's eastern frontier. Polish speakers seemed to have made up about 36% of the population of this area (at least in 1939). That seems like a quite few people, especially for country with such a low population.
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 11:40:27 AM
Actually, it's the kinda the opposite, Raz, as Poland pre-WW2 occupied territories that were much more sparsely populated than Silesia, Pommerania and Greater Poland it got in WW2 (hell, to this day, sans Warsaw, these territories remain the most densely populated and highly industrialized/urbanised in the country).
If Poland had today's borders in 1918, its population would have been much higher than the population of the territory controlled by Poland after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920.
I guess you can say that WWII worked out very well for Poland. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2013, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 11:40:27 AM
Actually, it's the kinda the opposite, Raz, as Poland pre-WW2 occupied territories that were much more sparsely populated than Silesia, Pommerania and Greater Poland it got in WW2 (hell, to this day, sans Warsaw, these territories remain the most densely populated and highly industrialized/urbanised in the country).
If Poland had today's borders in 1918, its population would have been much higher than the population of the territory controlled by Poland after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920.
I guess you can say that WWII worked out very well for Poland. :hmm:
Worked out for you. You would have been born in Poland.
Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2013, 12:55:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2013, 11:40:27 AM
Actually, it's the kinda the opposite, Raz, as Poland pre-WW2 occupied territories that were much more sparsely populated than Silesia, Pommerania and Greater Poland it got in WW2 (hell, to this day, sans Warsaw, these territories remain the most densely populated and highly industrialized/urbanised in the country).
If Poland had today's borders in 1918, its population would have been much higher than the population of the territory controlled by Poland after the Polish-Soviet war of 1920.
I guess you can say that WWII worked out very well for Poland. :hmm:
We didnt get to keep the populace.